tv Washington Journal CSPAN October 1, 2011 7:00am-10:00am EDT
moulton discusses president obama's handling of gay rights issues. and the group's agenda in congress and in the states. and later, "washington times" congressional bureau chief, stephen dinan, talks about legislation that would create an electronic government database that checks whether new hires are eligible to work in the u.s. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: 1100 n. not paid peras morning, congressional leaders to say that president obama's jobs bill will not be at the top of their agenda when they reconvene next week. mitt romney saying they expect her raise up to $13 million. president obama expects more than 55 meghan dollars.
claiming that killing him, and it goes on what the story. editorials of paper is taking a look at this topic, such as the "new york daily news." two perspectives from the world of politics this morning. president obama talking about the effort in the organization that was behind the targeted killing. this is what he had to say >>
the death of his of awlaki major active al qaeda's most organizational feel it. he was the organizer 4 al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. he took the lead for planning and directing efforts to murder innocent americans. he directed the failed attempt to blow an airplane on christmas day in 2009. he directed a failed attempt to blow off u.s. cargo airplanes in 2010. he repeatedly called on individuals around the world to kill innocent men, women, and children to advance their murderous agenda. the death of sparks and awlaki other significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat al qaeda and its affiliates. that was the present host: of the united states from friday. ron paul of texas, his
statements were highlighted in which he was speaking from manchester, new hampshire, talking about the announcement from the president. also taking a look at another aspect of it. here is where ron paul had to say. >> he was an american citizen never tried are charged for any crime. he might have been associated with the underwear bomber. if the american people except as blindly and cassoulet, if we now have the accepted practice of the president assassinating people believe things are bad guys, and i think it is sad. getting host: your thoughts about the announcement and what you hear from the editorials that we ever read. here is how you can call in with your comments this morning.
down lower, the editors right. write -- to your calls this morning on this topic. on a republican line, you are up first from queens, new york. i wanted to mention caller: that in 2006, a young senator from illinois gave a major speech on the senate. woody said in those remarks, i think, was a strong defense of
habeas corpus. we need to give people a trial before we take justice. they can from the current president barack obama. that speech can be read in reviewed by the young people in college and high school. he made the point that whoever the terrorist is, the greater terrorists, the more we want to catch the person, put them on trial for the respect of the law and the right if human beings as our country was founded. if we find that he tried to hurt any of us, then we would execute that justice, but first we want to try people. that is all that we're saying. let us make sure that justice is first deserved. host: how you apply that to the way that this was carried out with drones?
caller: it may not be the most effective way to apply justice. there is going to be collateral damage and we do not want that. the war of propaganda is very important. host: taxes, you are next on the democrats' line. thank you for taking caller: michael perry my question to ron paul is, what is his comment when the bush administration murdered saddam hussein and millions of iraqis? and also, would you do me a favor, pedro? would you tell -- i cannot think of her name now. apply it to the host: question of the awlaki case.
caller: stop -- tell progress that to stop being so transparent about her hatred of this president. bruce, host: republican line. caller: how can he kill people like awlaki and be against waterboarding? we are moving all host: want to caller: he was a u.s. citizen that was never tried it. we have no idea what crimes he committed. they just executed them based on false information.
the obama administration claimed that they wanted to be transparent. host: what about the fact that he was out of country? caller: as an american, the not have the right to live anywhere you wish? he was of yemeni dissent. there is nothing wrong with that. and honestly, that caller saying that we were getting rid of the enemy in this of that, our government has never given that information. it is feeding into people's fears. host: a little information about the drone. it cost $5 million. it carried two hellfire
missiles which is in the accompanying photo. it goes up to 135 m.p.h. and can stay airborne for up to 40 hours. manhattan, new york, rob, the democrats' line. caller: this was a known enemy and a known terrorist. the government has a lot of the information's about this guy. i do not think there is any doubt about it. president obama has been showing that he is tough as nails with regard to -- this is the way that you fight the terrorists. you do not buy that terrorists by nation-building. you do not buy that terrorists might trying to take over a continent. you do these very specific strikes, and republicans should be taking their hats off to our
president, and democrats as well, because he is fighting terrorism the right way and he is doing a very cost-effective way, unlike the previous administration, which got into nation-building. host: what you think about ron paul's comments? caller: i like all lot of what ron paul says, but he is a often right field on this. host: from twitter. this is one way that you can reach us this morning, as well as the enol and the bones. -- e-mail and the funds. -- phones.
take all those thoughts and add- on by sending us an e-mail or a twwet. caller: i have not taught you and a long time. i respect what the first man said and i respect what ron paul said. i'm a 3-tour combat veteran and i take life and death and the constitution and all of our laws very seriously. this man, and you can see this man preaching his eight and he
will scare the holy crap out of you. i am glad we did not spend $100 million looking for this man and maybe not catching. it is time to take him out. could you do it program on wall street, america needs to know what is happening. host: duluth, ga., the democrats' line. caller: he denounced the united states, he denounced his citizenship, and he declared war on the united states, and he was not just preaching. it was actually in the process of having american citizens killed. it was done justifiably. on the homeland itself, he would
probably have not done at that same way. you probably would've gone would view process of law. but the fact that he was a terrorist outside the country, this was a better way to take care of it. i do not have any problem with that. what ron paul said, if you love your country, when you declare war on the analysis and its people, you become an enemy of the state. i have no problem with what happened to that fellow. host: is the few wall street journal" discussing another aspect of it.
we'll talk about paula dixon a bit. a couple more calls. john on the republican line. caller: a great show was always. i cannot believe what we are hearing. we assassinated someone without proof of his doing things. it is a disturbing call. in 2008, i voted for ron paul and i was put on the terrorist list, ok? we have financial terrorists and not being prosecuted. we have people glorifying these people. i just cannot believe it. it is a tragedy. host: what about his ties to the
underwear bomber and the fort hood shootings? caller: you have to look at their root cause of why people are doing this. we have been supporting of brutal monarchies in saudi arabia for oil. does not make america look very good women can go out and assassinate people around the world. this is not america. republican democrat, it is not american. host: we're going to take a pause and talk about politics, especially when it comes to a decision by florida officials and their primary. here is chris van hollen who will be on our "news makers" program.
he weighed in on the impact of florida and you probably saw this on the news, moving its primary to january 31. >> if florida succeeded, they could have an impact because whoever wins the first primary does have some momentum and it does not always mean if you win at the end of the day, but you have some momentum. the question is whether or not they are successful in doing that. it could certainly have consequences. host: you can see more that on sunday at 10:00, josh lederman joining us now. nevada and south guest: carolina and new hampshire have all the out that they would move there is even earlier to maintain their status at the head of the pack and tried to maintain the
influence that mr. van hollen was just talking about. everyone knew or could have predicted for the was going to lose half of their delegates because they were violating the national republican party rule by holding their contest early. the ironic thing is that it the other four states move their primaries or caucuses even earlier to keep their place, they would also violate their roles and it also lose half of their delegates, according to rnc officials. host: what is the tactical reason for moving the date? guest: when you get to the convention, which will be in florida, everyone will probably know who the nominee is, and so that as the steppe where everyone does the the process.
the influence comes from what dan hollen was saying, the man mentum that comes from early stage, you can raise money and carry that momentum into the next day. even more important, all the candidates have to come to your state and campaign for your voters. host:, walk josh lederman us through a timeline? guest: we could see a primary or caucus in late december which with the war rants into the calendar. you will see be -- campaigning over christmas day. probably throughout january, a number of other contests. host: will people accept that
much politics during a holiday when people do not pay attention to these kinds of things? guest: to some extent, this is a repeat of what we saw in 2008. we ended up having contest in january even though they are typically in february for the early stages and starting in march for most of the other states. my guess is that the primaries are in january, that will have to be the way that it is. people will have to campaign and people will be upset about it. a lot of reporters will not be happy to work over christmas and new year's, but that is the decision of florida made. host: what is the likelihood that and a couple of weeks we hear something? guest: we will hear something
even sooner. that deadline to say when you are holding a contest is october 1. because of costs last-minute scramble, some states may make their decision later. but i would guess that in the next two weeks, we will hear more. host:, thank you. josh lederman we go to pennsylvania. and the democrats line. caller: the man advocated the death of americans so he is a traitor. we do not have forces down there to my knowledge. but we always say to any individual, we love them all, but this president inherited this apparatus, and this apparatus is what this
government decided it would be building to be able to deal with this activity by any enemy. host: are you comfortable with the way did this president is using this apparatus? caller: i am not comfortable with any debt, but as far as the information i get, i do not know what truth or wrong or right is as being expressed to the american people through our media. the point for me is that he expressed killing americans wherever they are, whenever, the enemy can. he is advocating that. he has made himself the enemy not only of the state but of humanity. host: new jersey on our independent line.
caller: the last caller took a lot my points, he is right, it is treason. the caller before that, this guy is an admitted terrorist, and admitted treasonous person. the worst thing in the world is that he is an american citizen and they should kill him anyplace that they can kill them. they bombed pearl land, they bombed hiroshima to get the people that were backing, with ridiculous collateral damage. there is no collateral damage share. this guy had to be taken down and there are thousands more that need to be taken out the same way. host: another perspective from twitter. new haven, connecticut, good morning, john on the republican line.
aller: we're talking about person's views or points. i believe the first amendment, the right to protest our speak freely, -- or speak freely. so if we have a conversation, and some callers say that they should kill him. once you admit to that, to me, it is just as bad. you've got a president who invented after an attack -- who admitted after an attack that he gave the order. under military law, he is accountable for that debt. the man that did it was under his order. i am saying, we are calling people killer, but we're also in a position where we have taken out 27 cities.
we go next to white haven, pa., miles. caller: i think the president use the most efficient way because it was necessary. i think he has done a great job. it is amazing how some people can support a war effort when it simply a crank of that war machine so their supporters can benefit from it financially. what about the reaction host: from our callers? caller: a lot of people are misinformed. a lot of what we saw was necessary.
it is an accurate description of american politics and a lot of people are just misinformed and that is unfortunate. we need to be able to describe an articulate the process of what went down. host: from pbs, and this says about the drone program. the number drones has increased from 60 to more than 6000 since 9/11. it is ballooned to over $1.4 billion. most of them are used for
surveillance, some of the experimental ones are as small as a dragonfly and disguised as one. tampa, florida, john on the republican line. caller: i support what the president did, i really did. people very easily forget what happened at fort hood. that is my reasoning. he was a bad man. host: in your mind, the evidence was there to justify this? yes, i must certainly thing caller: biwas a very good hits. host: arkansas, you are next on our independent line. go-ahead. caller: i think the president
did the right thing. this man when i come over here ... stand trial. i do not think the president would pick a person out of the crowd. the people he killed did not get an attorney or justice. i think the president did the right thing to get rid of this man. host: here is rick perry talking about a speech on friday, talking about the serious setback for al qaeda. >> 10 years after robert ray men and women and military intelligence continue to take the fight to those that would do harm to our country, and i'd just salute them, this man that they remove from doing any further harm, awlaki, they use their internet to spread their message of violence.
his death will be quite a serious setback for that organization. host: in other news this morning, the news about banks charging for the use of debit cards. in the pages of the "new york post," some of the politics talking about the durbin amendment. that was part of the sweeping dodd-frank financial reform bill, which would regulate the swipe fees. banks will make up for the lost revenue. what most folks are not picking up on is that the new fees would cover any decrease in profits and then some.
a spokesman for a merchant's coalition said. st. louis, missouri, go ahead. caller: i am a combat veteran myself, and i believe this gentleman was motivating people to commit acts of treason against our country. the cia does not go around randomly murdering people. they have obviously done their homework and taken out a possible threat to this country. i did was totally justified. host: omaha, nebraska.
caller: this is not a political issue. this is something that obama should be credited for. if you are a bad guy and doing bad things to the u.s., we do not want these guys here on trial. let's take them out and congratulations to obama. i am not a fan of obama, but in this case he did a good thing. host: after the holiday, some of the congressional agenda.
when the house returns it to a clock, you can see it here on c- span. -- at 2:00, you can see it on c- span. danville, va., good morning to terry. caller: i really support what the government did. the dow waged war against america. he had to be taken out. also, i like to go a step further. i believe that in this country we need to revise the death penalty. we have a lot of middle class hard workers like myself who are
paying for a lot of murderers who are on death row. i believe that every state should have the death row inmate, and that these people should be taken out. host: what are your thoughts on the drone program that was used? caller: that was the right thing to do, definitely. i truly believe we have too many people on death row sucking up the middle class monday, and when they should be sent to jesus. we have the laws and i think we should follow the laws. host: homestead, florida. caller: ours is not to question
caller: the taliban always uses are constitutional democracy which they do not like, they want to destroy this, but they said that you should do this or that. but they do not want their man killed said they use our own laws against us. you understand what i'm saying? host: what is your point? caller: people are calling up and saying we should not kill this guy even though he is connected to of this. host: turning to fund-raising by
i am an agreement to them taking that do doubt. it had called in with chicago what the bomb in his drawer is what it did some things in the air, would we be crying about what happened today families and all the americans they got hurt and he is part of a plot? i do not understand why anyone would come on this line and say that we're wrong for taking that do doubt, if before we have to cry and mourned. we took him out before there was any crying and families morning. i applaud the president for what he did. host: on sunday, the "financial times" talks about paris launching an electric car- sharing program.
minneapolis, tracy, on the republican line. caller: i agree with ron paul because our government also said that iraq's weapons of mass destruction and we did not torture. we can have a trial for that person without him even been there. we do not have to ketchum. if we have the goods on someone, let's get a conviction in court. i do not necessarily disagree with -- this was an easy case
but what about the political dissent are opposing dissenting view? you can make of anything as it goes along. same guy as bad that we have to get in, it is a slippery slope. host: we will take one more call. caller: i have a problem with them taking out all whole house will the little bomb in the sky. i believe that the american justice system says that we need
to let those people go they are guilty of all with murder one innocent person. if the british have had a system like that, they would of been murdered before they ever got started with a constitution. if we are a country are iraq, -- of law, they could murder people they just disagree with what is going on. host: that is arkansas. and that was the last call that we will take. in our next segment, we take a look at the issue of gay rights. the president is expected to address a gay-rights campaign to nine. we will also talk about the
be protected. . >> if you do not like a proposal, if you have to be able to speak freely about it. administrators should be able to do that as well. that is part of what academic freedom protectorate without that, if you do not have the expertise and faculty available. >> harry nelson, author of the "no university is an island." >> this is a dangerous time for britain and a dangerous time for britain's economy. planovernment's austerity is failing. you can sense the fear that people have as we watch the economic crisis that sorts our country in 2008, threatening to return. >> with the british house of commons still in recess, annual party conferences are continuing in the uk.
watch ed miliband's keynote sunday at 9:00 on c-span and next sunday, david cameron. >> american citizens forced from their homes, no trial, no charges. for 10-year-old norman mineta, his family and other japanese americans, wyoming's heart mountain internment camp was hundred almost 70 years later, hear his story on american history tv on c-span 3. on american artifacts, but for the 19th century america got its art and discoveries from the smithsonian new great hall of wonders if separate oral history, in 1973, elizabeth holtzman became the youngest woman ever elected to congress. one year later, as a member of the house judiciary committee, she voted to help to impeach president. look at the complete schedule at our website or for your
schedules in your e-mail box. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is the economics professor of george mason university, the mercator center. welcome. you and your colleagues did some research on the notion of shovel ready jobs. what did you find? guest: of people that were hired, only 42% were hired from the unemployment line. almost half, 47% were poached from other private sector jobs mostly. there is probably a lot less job creation and more jobs shifting than voters would expect. host: why is an important to make that distinction? guest: it gives a sense of where the bill was targeted out. was it hard to find short notice or. when stimulus funds went toward
health care and engineering, those are where the government was going to be taking people away from other jobs rather than hiring people from the and and one of line. we used two different methods. one approach was to interview people let stimulus fund organizations around the country. a total of 85 different organizations. the merc datacenter that said people the five differed metropolitan areas. we call people up on the website and and we mailed out thousands of surveys and we had people mail that pact, workers and firms, and they told us the same thing. the labor market was tighter.
when when when you hired comment at this company or the non- profit it has been, and then we ask them what are you doing before you got the job. and like you said, about half of them found that did as a been working at other jobs. host: 47%? guest: yes. you think that the answer was obvious. instead, about half of the organizations told us that it was as hard or harder to find good people. partly because the government targeted narrow, specialized skills. when the government is hiring engineering firms, when the government is using stimulus funds to build up health
clinics in rural areas, but they are really only so many qualified people for those kinds of jobs and almost all of those people are already employed. host: because of the specific never rose some of the jobs, is that why did jobs shifting was not creating new jobs? guest: it seems likely if the stimulus had been targeted at less skilled workers, we would've gone more bang for the buck. it more stimulus dollars had gone toward that, there would been more bang for the buck. host: how many firms that you talked to were shell-ready types of jobs? guest: this is something where my co-author made the interviews. there really is no such thing as shovel ready. this is what the president said and what we found out on the ground. if you're talking about building
a bridge, it takes years for environmental compliance and get to all of your ducks in a row. some things can go up quickly. we found a third category, things that can go past and in the third category which has back and the attention of the media. it is jobs that just get labeled as stimulus funding. some bridge projects or construction projects, for the process had been going on for a couple of years for the government to said, we all know that it was one to finish up, this third year, let's move it over the stimulus. so we label something stimulus. host: is there a total number of jobs that we could say was created by stimulus? guest: we are addressing and narrow question of what happened with the first round of spending.
normal support of so stimulus say that there are other subjects. if someone is paid by the stimulus and then they go to a local restaurant to buy some food, or accompanied by some equipment that home depot, that does not show up and are steady. but our study tells you is that whatever people off the pay off of the stimulus was, it was probably lower. host: hear the numbers if you want ask our guest questions. even in your own study, you said jobs were created. guest: some people were hired from unemployment lines. some were published in some more certainly replace.
but it is hard to tell whether jobs were created en masse. so that is why we have as companies what you would otherwise. host: what of other companies to give you information? guest: most were remarkably candid. we gave them complete anonymity. some people tell us about the failures of the bureaucratic delays, all small examples of government waste. that probably it would of been less forthcoming if that had been not anonymous. host: give us an example of value. guest: let me give you a modest example of waste. we saw some other examples but this one fits into an eyesore. a government contractor that had been putting in tile for government buildings, well over a decade, he was used for putting in these far and wide square tiles that we of all put
into bathrooms. it was in the architectural specification. just when he started working on a project, the government said, instead of these normal four- inch tiles, let's put in these tiny tiles. the contractor not got it -- did not get an explanation for this, but it was clear from his own experience it was because they were trying to get that money out the door faster. it would take more work to put in more tiles. we saw that example happen anytime, where people felt they were under pressure to move the money quickly. there was some cutting of corners along the way. host: you say that this was the initial finding and that further study is do you. what will be in the next ready? guest: some will be the technical stuff that economists get excited about. we will deal that asked people, how much you cut back your
spending when you're unemployed? how did you pay for your consumer spending? economists have a variety of theories about how people deal with unemployment, how they keep spending going during tough times. milton friedman famously argued that people will try to borrow and draw down their savings and keep their spending smooth. we saw paramount of evidence for that but we have to look in more detail to a seat to what extent people were able to borrow easily. host: the first call is from alexandria, virginia. floyd, you're on with garett jones of the george washington university. caller: will there be a follow- up survey to look at those folks that left the job, whether or not other people were unemployed fill those jobs, or were those jobs filled with people who were employed?
guest: a great question as something we can i get that directly. we wish that the government had asked the question themselves. witches are still a small university-based research center in virginia. the government could easily of ask these follow-up questions. what you think happened at year- old employer? or they planning to fill that job after you left? the government has subpoena power and make a good response rates. unfortunately they have not tried to answer those questions. we need to know to what extent workers -- as jobs get replaced really quickly, it is not a big deal if you are poaching workers from the private sector. but if what happens is that once all worker got published, that job went unfilled, then that means that there is paul a lot of net job creation. host: according to your survey,
the private sector represented 47% of those that you talk to. nonprofit was 40%, and public was 13%. what type of industries are we talking about? guest: a lot of people think about stimulus funds going to constructions. we also talk to a lot of engineering firms. if you build a building, you will leave a lot of engineers. that is where we found the companies were more likely to tell us that we are really busy when the stimulus came along and so we had to turn down other work in order to take the stimulus funded work. we had engineering firms, we spoke with health clinics in small and medium-sized towns that were getting funding to keep their health clinic doors open. we spoke to county governments that were trying to get certification programs and rebuild their downtown. we should not be under the
illusion that this is just people paving roads. caller: i have a question concerning the stimulus money that was supposedly going to go to rebuild america's schools. here locally in the paper, they ran an article in may 2009 saying of the $1.1 billion that was supposed to go to rebuild america's schools the first year of the stimulus, all of it was eacher pay. for teaca none of it was going to go to rebuild america's schools. all of it was going to teacher'' pay. i wonder how true was that around the country? i will listen to your response.
guest: this category of states -- economists learned something that turned out to be very surprising. what was found is the states that got a lot of money from the stimulus tended to actually cut back on their borrowings. so you would of thought if you get a lot of money from the stimulus he might do more spending unusual. instead, state governments did last arlington usual. they used the money to keep things going the way they were. that turned out to be wrong as far as we can tell. they borrowed less from the labor market, from the financial market. host: were there other surprising things? guest: a number of other different studies showed that the stimulus paid off last in
several different ways. if states can borrow less when you give them a lot of money, they are probably going to have a lot less bang for the buck. host: sarah on our independent line. stimulus --'t the didn't the stimulus allow the teachers to stay around? also, was in washington or the states that misappropriated the funds from the first stimulus? thank you. guest: the federal government tried not to attach a lot of strings and to the state's. that is part of the reason why the states did not create a big stimulus effect. what it taylor found in their study was that states tended to
cut back on their purchases, on their salaries and wages for workers and tended to use their money more for giving money to the port, for transfers, for keeping open health clinics and medicaid-funded hospitals. they were facing a tough budget decisions. in a tough time, i can understand the government making that decision. it is probably what would happen if we give another wave of funding to the state's. host: cathy is on our democrat'' line. caller: i wanted someone to discuss the effect of globalization on our country for the last 50 years. it gets so annoying is all you hear is the democrats did this or the republicans did that. print jobs back from overseas is the problem. i feel like they keep us at
arm's length by saying if you just reduce taxes and the regulate us, we would bring the jobs back. it is like holding america ransom. guest: economists have been looking at this question, the effect of globalization on the demise of jobs in the u.s. and i come from a family that did a lot the manufacturing work in past decades. that is not what the men of my generation in the family are doing. it seems as though a big result is the world as a whole is losing manufacturing jobs. china is losing manufacturing jobs due to globalization. what happens is that machines are taking these jobs. if we are hoping that we will all go back to working on the assembly line having good manufacturing jobs, that is probably not going to happen. it is as
likely as us going back and working on the farms. is a law passed back in the great depression to require companies on government contracts to essentially pay union wages bank and it was a way that union workers were not exploited. what it means in practice is it you are a government contractor building a building or running a health clinic, you have to pay your workers high enough wages to make the government happy. you cannot hire as many people. we found numbers on the low side of what people estimate davis-bacon effect would be. if looks like people had to pay 6 percent and more on average -- it looks like people had to pay 6% more on average. we found these prevailing wage
rules weif they were not in effect, the government could hire more people. only about a third of them said that davis-bacon applied to them. they said they had to pay about 16% more than it would had to otherwise. host: is there any estimation of the money that was spent for what each job costs in terms of taxpayer dollars guest: there are a lot of estimates that run around. the simplest version is to take the total amount of stimulus money and/the number of government jobs that were created. i do not know where that particular number is. a lot of people told us we were paying $40 an hour for this work. so, davis-bacon ratchets up the cost of government work a bit and it means we get less jobs created an otherwise. host: if people wanted to read
your study, where can they find it? guest: there are two studies and they are both on mercadus.org. host: our guest and -- you are next on a republican line. caller: it is fascinating that you have just mentioned prevailing wages because that was the issue i was going to bring up. i can give you a true story. my next-door neighbor worked on the project. locally in new york. a matter of fact, it was franklin delano roosevelt's house renovation. when i found out that eventually the project ended up being $35
million, going back to my neighbor, the thing about prevailing wage bank is a prevailing wage was $79 an hour to work on president roosevelt's house. this is just one of what you talk about prevailing wage. those numbers you gave of $40 or $20 seemed very low when you talk about a union wage when you talk about union dues that are not accounted for and things like that. i would like to have your comments on, first, do you think it was worth spending that much money to fix up president roosevelt's house when many, many americans are just struggling to make ends meet? guest: that is a good question. what is surprising about davis- bacon laws is that when the government sets these quotas, they said these wages, there is a huge. it. some people realize that the
government seems to be getting it wrong in some counties and not in others. so for instance, one of the folks said the wage a that the government made them pay their workers was 40% higher than is needed to be which meant they were going to 40% fewer home renovations. the were trying to make homes more energy saving. davis-bacon wage for them was 40% to high. the surprising thing is that on average, the effects do not seem to be that big but because sometimes the government required wages are so high, it means that some jobs never get done. host: workers did not gain an unemployment insurance system when deciding to take a job. guest: actually, we found a couple of findings that were interesting like this one where we actually asked workers did you accept your job right around
the time of when your unemployment benefits were going to expire? a lot of economists think -- if you give them 99 weeks of unemployment, they are going to wait until the 98th week and then look around for jobs. it seems like common sense. when we asked people we found the same finding that other economists have found is that there are not that many people accepting a job right around the time when their benefits expire. we think people are gaming the system until the week their benefits expire. that is happening and lot less often. host: dayton, ohio, for our guest garrett jones. caller: i have been wondering why our population growth has not grown, has decreased. they had built these house
networks that they have here. they have built these brand-new hospital buildings with private patient rooms and all the amenities that you can only imagines. 1, they only use the two top floors. we have high unemployment. can you give us a little information of what you think these big health organizations building during this time when we really do not need it? thanks. guest: that is a good question. i do not know the formulas for how stimulus funding was allocated for health-care spending, but the formulas the use for transportation spending did not make any adjustment at all for unemployment rates in the economy then. they used old formulas that members of congress had worked out years and years ago.
so the stimulus we thought should have been targeted at high unemployment states and in some areas it was but transportation funding which received a lot of attention -- there was no targeting at all based on unemployment rates and that meant a lot less job creation and probably a lot more wasting of money. host: let me read a few more lines of your study. guest: so the federal government and its contractors tend to hire people with a lot of expertise. that means that we are trying to hire in sectors of the labor market where it is hard to find good health. the federal government and its contractors i think found that often the best person for the
job already has one. among people who are poached, job shifting, those people were quite likely to have graduate degrees. the with the mostly to be poached. host: would they tell you how much they made? guest: we did not ask that. host: because of concerns -- guest: people do not like to reveal that much about their income. host: only 14% turned down a job market offer before taking a current position -- guest: yes. of the people who were unemployed were less likely to take pay cuts then people who shifted over to another job. if you got hired by a stimulus funding job, you were probably taking a pay cut.
if you were poached, you're probably getting a big pay increase. on this question of turning down jobs -- some economists wonder if people are being choosier. what we found is what most economists find is that you send out a lot of resumes and the first job offer you get you might have go a little bit. host: next call is from santa clara, calif. caller: i wanted to mention something about this secret bank set out in 1973. i was able to get into the site for a short time yesterday and print of everything that was in their. this turned out to be a slush fund. tax cheat tim geithner had the authority to write checks out of this. it is over $120 billion that he
has been writing checks for political people that contributed to this administration. host: and the question for our guest? caller: how is this a bull to be done? $120 billion went to teachers' unions to help in schools. all of that money went into the pension fund for teachers. guest: on both of those questions, i do not have the expertise to answer either of those. host: this is from seattle -- guest: well, we did see a lot of musical chairs being played with jobs. so, i think the corporations and the government both try to find
out who is the best person for the job. economists nowadays model the job market a lot like the day the market where it is hard to find a good match. sometimes you try one out and it does not work out. host: the lessons that you saw here -- what could be applied to the american jobs act of the president? guest: if we are going to do something like this again, it should be much more targeted at regions of the country with high unemployment rates. to the extent that the government can do it rationally, they should try to target sectors of the labor market where it is easy to get good people on short notice. host: with those good people not shift from other jobs? the scope of the government should be able to hire people from the unemployment lines. during a recession, about two- thirds of new hires come from
the unemployment lines and about one-third from job shifting. the government did worse than that. he would be nice to do at least as well as the average organization. host: miami, fla., thank you for waiting. caller: it will be interesting to look at not just jobs created and the longevity of those jobs. if we can grow the amount of employment, does it make sense at all? i am questioning the ability of the government to have any to diligence in how the money is spent. should the government want to flood the market with money to stimulate, i think it should focus on creating innovation, hiring experts and researchers to come up and mimic the private sector with developments and inventions and then make it
available to the market which would eventually create jobs that are competitive and allow us to export. guest: that brings up an important point. even economists who are supportive of emergency government spending to help an economy, even they will be clear that this is just a temporary fix, that as soon as that spending goes away, the benefit goes away. if we use world war ii as an example, we sought and massive increase in employment. one that went away, the boom went away as well. so, to fix our long run problem, to get permanent hiring, that is a very different set of policy proposals. the ideas that you mentioned a bucket and productivity up and making the u.s. a place where
foreigners want to bring their money, that is going to help us for the long run. hostperhaps six months or at moa year you get a positive hangover effect. we had contractors tell us this. "we try to tell our employees that these were just temporary contracts and the money it might not be there." some people were so desperate to work that you were happy to take the job. host: fort lauderdale, good morning. caller: hi. i am a former jobs recruiter. i would like to make a few statements about what i think our situation is now. from the point of view of the jobs recruiter. number one, i think the first step that the politicians can do is stop saying the word "through no fault of their own."
i do not mean to demean anyone by saying those words, but what they do mean it is for people to realize that their company did not fire everybody. they fired you. companies have indispensable people who have the job skills to survive tough economic times because the company cannot fire them. they fired other people, and you are one of them. people need to remember "what was i chosen" and not the -- -- was i chosen q" how do you explain 11 million jobless people and 3.5 million
want ads? guest: that happens in every recession. and massive increase in the number of people looking for work and a lot of extra hiring going on. in the amount of unemployed people being hired is held -- has held pretty much steady throughout the recession. it has been about 1 million people per month. that is true this year, the year before, and the previous couple of years before because it takes the labor market a long time to digest a whole bunch of new workers. when he says the company's lead off a couple of people, they usually lay off the people who are the worst for that particular job, but part of what happens in a healthy economy is that even those of us who are second-rate workers get to hold jobs. sometimes we are tempted to be moralistic and say the people
who got fired or the worst workers, and that is true, but part of the benefit of a free- market system is some of us can still find a job. host: does the government do research like yours? guest: well, yes. and the government has been collecting a lot of data. you can read a lot of these reports on the web site but they did not ask the questions that we would have liked to have seen. it would be easy to ask how many workers came from unemployment lines. the federal reserve does this kind of research all the time. the national science foundation funds and a lot of research all around the country on this. yes, we created a new data set. host: dayton, ohio, good morning. [dial tone] he is gone.
the next call is from the florida keys. caller: i have a comment and a question about what you were just talking about, the folks on unemployment. because i have a business. id seems like the people in business are trying to hire in an environment like this find that the labor pool -- you get a lot less quality workers available. so many people are being paid to stay home and not work. my question is concerning gm, and i do not even know if it falls into your categoric. what was supposed to happen to the bailout money gm was supposed to pay back? i keep hearing about gm, and a lot of the banks have paid the bailout money back. i never hear that we were off
the hook for that money. could you elaborate on that? guest: i only know a bit about gm. gm, like chrysler, has not paid back every dollar. in each case, there is a couple of billion dollars left over. i can tell you that this a thought that people do not game the unemployment system on average, it is a tough thing that economists believe. it seems as if we must be missing something here. your story matches something what they hear from the general contractors association, that contractors are finding it hard to get some of their people to come back to work because they have 99 weeks of unemployment. there are some people who are happy to take a generous unemployment benefits rather than working. host: another term that we hear is keynesian theory.
what is your reports say about that? guest: john maynard keynes is famous for claiming that in a slump, government spending could help get the economy back on track. he used a chalkboard. . what our studies show is that when you go from the chalkboard to real life, it is quite a bit harder. partly that is for good reasons. our government does not try to waste money. the contract system is designed to build buildings that stand up and do not collapse, toilets that flush, electrical systems that work. that means the government practice hires the best contractor for the job, and the best contractor tries to find the best worker for the job. that is something that he did not plan on. ironically, the fact that our
government is trying to do a good job means the stimulus pays off less than what a lot people would expect. host: miami, hello to enrique, on independent line. caller: as people listen to you, they should know that senator orrin hatch is one of the most far-right senators of the congress. i think people should keep that in mind when they listen to what you are saying. guest: i enjoyed my time. some people notice that he has received some attention from both the right and left for not sitting in their particular part of the political spectrum. he was a great man to work for and he has a lot of diverse views. a conservative senator one that wanted to be more
conservative. caller: i have not heard anyone discuss increasing the defense budget as opposed to decrease in it as a way to provide a bigger stimulus for the economy rather than bailing out wall street and of the banks. so if no one is discussing it, perhaps you could explain that to me. guest: well, i am not really familiar how the defense budget has been used to bail out the banks. it seems as though we are in a world where people are talking about cutting the defense budget. extending the budget was the way we got most of the boom during world war ii. that is not on the table now. host: would there be a difference if the money was directed toward projects that could get up in a shorter amount of time? guest: that is a good question.
if the defense department has projects that were on the table where the guidelines are there and could be pulled off the shelf, that is the think that the stimulus is trying to fund spending our contractors found that the general services administration was taking off the shelf projects and trying to find easy ones to fund. perhaps the department of defense has projects like that. host: i was reading an example about putting asphalt on the road or clearing a field. those projects are ones that are better than the ones that require yields of build up. guest: unless there are ones that the government has been planning for years. what would be great if we had more contingency plans for what happens if there is a financial crisis. it was hard to have shovel-ready projects when we are not ready for them. caller: sir, you seem to be
suggesting that there is a problem with people who work in construction, may be getting $40 an hour or more than that or less than that. do you think there is a problem with the 1% at the top of the economic scheme getting tens of billions of dollars in some cases? do you think there is a problem with a system in which bank of america and general electric pay absolutely no tax? guest: i am not really familiar with the tax situations of some corporations. i wish i did. i think the goal of the stimulus is to pay market wages for folks. if you are paying somebody in the market wage, in a lot of lines of work, that is going to be a very generous compensation. the problem is from a taxpayer's point of view. does the taxpayer feel like he
or she should be paying more than the going wage for a government stimulus project? the trade-off here is between the taxpayer on the one hand and a worker on the other. it is great for the worker to get more money. but if they are asking that to be paid for by the taxpayer, that is a deal that the taxpayer and the working should be working out on their own. host: mercadus.org is the webiste. garett jones, thanks for your time. in our last segment, we take a look at the e-verify system. there is legislation pending that if passed would require all employees to use it to cut down on immigrants who should not get jobs. we will have a discussion about that, but next, we will be talking about gay-rights.
>> we should always start with the assumption that when a politician or a ceo is saying something they are not telling the truth. they may be telling you the truth but the burden should be on them to prove it. >> directed and produced three of the top 10 grossing documentaries of all time and a best-selling author. sunday, your chance to call, e-
mail, and tweet michael moore on c-span2. >> oral argument is actually the first time the justices talk about a case together. they ask awhen question, i can figure out what is bothering them about a case. >> since 1916, the new supreme court term begins the first monday in october pending each year, a hearing almost 70 cases of. cases include gps tracking without a warrant and copyright protection. watch the justices around the country online at the c-span radio library. -- c-span radio library. host: our guest brian moulton,
chief legislative counsel on the human rights campaign. what is the function tonight? guest: it is our annual national gala dinner. we have 300 folks coming in from around the country. we are thrilled to have the president speaking with us. it is his second appearance in the three years of the term, so we are thrilled to have him back. host: what do you think would be the most significant thing he could say to your group tonight? guest: to recognize how historic we are and an historic moment that we are at right on the heels of "don't ask, don't tell being repealed. and then committing himself to keeping and moving that ball forward. we have a long way to go still. with love to see a continued commitment. host: how could he moved the ball forward? guest: he has done a lot.
there are still a lot of ways in which our community experiences discrimination. it is still perfectly legal to fire someone because of their sexual orientation in 29 states at. -- states. trying to move them forward, it would be an amazing step, working with federal contractors, to be sure that people are not being discriminated against in implement. he is continuing -- the administration has been exploring ways to provide rights and benefits. of the have done an amazing job and there are many more opportunities out there through regulations and executive orders. host: same-sex marriage? guest: marriage is a difficult question for the president because there is not really a role for the federal government when deciding who can or cannot
mary. saying that the federal government will not recognize unlawful marriage is even in the six states and d.c. where marriage is available. his administration has come out against it and then stopped defending it against challenges in federal court. they have done quite a bit on that front. we would love if the president would be supportive of marriage the quality. he is evil and and we hope he will evolve quickly. i do not -- he is evolving quickly and we hope he will quickly. host: is it important that states like new york recognize same-sex marriage in your opinion? guest: when we have a populous state added to the column, it is significant for the fight nationwide and that think it influences how national policymakers look at the issue
when the issue is becoming something that more and more states are doing and is seen last as an aberration. perhaps that will help folks get further down the road. host: our guest is going to be with us until 9:15. if you want to speak with him, the numbers are on your screen. if you want to send us an e-mail -- or you can also send us say tweet -- when it comes back to the president as far as his influence on topics like same- sex marriage, there have been a couple of forums that he has been at with the topic has come up bank the president was speaking at a fundraiser, and the topic of marriage came from the audience. i want to show you what happened, the reaction, and get
your reaction and banquets that is why i ordered federal agencies to extend the same benefits thato go to gay couples as they do to straight couples. i heard you, guys. [laughter] believe it or not, i anticipated someone might ask. [cheers and applause] where was i? host: your reaction? guest: certainly, the president knows that marriage equality is a tremendously important issue for the community. i think he realizes that despite everything he has accomplished, that is what folks are looking for, the leadership of the president on the question of
marriage equality. i understand the frustration of those in the audience. i do not have a crystal ball of when he will move down that road. i think that the community is very supportive of the president and for good reason. we have not had a president that has been more supportive of the community bank we have seen some tremendous step forward, the passage of a hate crime law and a lot of important protections through the administration. things like hospital dissertation protection for same-sex parents and lots of other changes. of course, the end of the defense of this discriminatory marriage act in court. host: would lead to the endorsement? guest: at the record that i just described. we have supported the president in the initial election and we all like the encumbrance to
stand by the community. i don't think the community like any community -- there are individuals who do not support the president for a variety of reasons including ones that are not related to his policy positions on our community that prioritize other issues pending certainly, there are folks who are not satisfied with how long things have come along. i completely understand that frustration. is not universal. i think he is strongly supported by our community. host: the first call this morning. caller: i was just wondering -- i wanted to make a comment. should the president -- how is the political nature of having independent groups, you know, --
it is such a big agenda push within a simple military system. what bothers me is the backing of 8. host: what is your question? caller: the few people that are considered gay or whatever, it affects the agenda of the whole u.s. military and the united states. guest: i am assuming the caller is referring to the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." my response would be this was a very lengthy and delivered to the process by the military leadership. they did a lengthy evaluation process to determine that this would not disrupt the good order of our military, and at the end of the day when all those steps were met and that review happen, the law was repealed.
i think it was done in a very deliberative process. there are many gay and lesbian americans already serving, and now they can serve openly and honestly. i think that will improve and not damage our military in any way. caller: i have a comment and question. i am an african american, and i have a brother who lives in the alternative lifestyle. he has been persecuted and has been relieved from jobs because of his alternative lifestyle. i thought that we had civil- rights legislation in place to protect all americans against this type of discrimination. i really do not understand what the big hooopla is about only protecting gays and lesbians.
i thought the legislation was supposed to protect all americans. it is very disheartening to me to see anybody discriminated against just simply because there police or their lifestyle. what is america's supposed to stand for if it is not able to stand up for disenfranchised -- isn't this how this country was formed and made? the president should make a statement to the world that we are tolerant and civilized people, a nation of understanding people bank shouldn't he do this? guest: absolutely. we are very happy to welcome him back for the second time to our national dinner tuesday to our audience and a national audience about the quality of being gay,
lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people. that means in 29 states, you can still be fired just because you are gay but not with any consideration of merit. unfortunately, we have a long way to go to make sure that the quality is the reality. host: louisville, kentucky, good morning. caller: i have a statement first to make concerning the president. i noticed that he is making appearances with gay activists. i feel like there is no right to be gay. there is a choice. i wonder why the media never mentions that those two guys in chicago that were assassinated that had close ties with the president with the senator at time of illinois conveniently
were assassinated in 2007 and there is still speculation that he had sexual activity with an. my question is, i wonder if the president is gay himself. i would like to know that. guest: well, i do not know anything about the chicago incident that you are referring to. i would like to go back and say that the consensus among science and psychological organizations is that sexual orientation is not a choice and is not something that can be changed but is something that is a core part of someone's identity. that remains a part of the conversation, but i do not think that should influence whether people should be protected against discrimination. host: we have a map of same-sex
marriage in the u.s. no same-sex marriage laws all together. as a policy issue when we come up to 2012, how much of this will be a policy issue? guest: we are going to seek marriage being part of the electoral conversation in 2012 bank minnesota, north carolina are both going to have constitutional amendments on their ballots. there is a possibility that states like maine, washington, or oregon may be considering a pro-active marriage issues. it continues to be part of the election cycle every year, and we are hopeful that we will be able to push back those amendments and move forward to a marriage issue. host: as far as the topic is concerned, i want you to react to something that was said in a
story in the washington post. he said according to census figures -- guest: sure. i think there are a number of conclusions to jump to in that reasoning. first of all, marriage is a young concept in all the states where it is available. if you look at states like massachusetts, they have the largest percentage of married same-sex couples in that state. you have a large number of married couples in that state. secondly, marriage equality in the states is not marriage equality nationwide. i think a lot of same-sex
couples see it as i could get married here, but if i moved across state lines, might marriage ceases to exist. there are a lot of rights and benefits of marriage under federal law, everything from social security survivor benefits to the ability to sponsor a spouse for immigration as well as a lot of tax benefits. so i think for a lot of same-sex couples, they are still considering whether or not to enter into an institution that is partly an equality. host: philadelphia, pa., becky, go ahead. go ahead. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: congratulations for the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." my concern is that if republicans get into office,
they are going to reinstitute the "don't ask, don't tell." guest: sure. we have heard and number of candidates, republican candidate for president, say that date supported the law and would like to see it back in place. "don't ask, don't tell" was a law enacted by congress. it would be a little more complicated than just a president's stepping in, but we are concerned that a subsequent president might try to roll this back. i am hopeful that there is overwhelming public support for the end of that policy. we had strong support among the military leadership. as this goes forward and is implemented and we see that this does not cause the kinds of terrible scenarios, we will all become comfortable with the idea of open service and you will see gay and lesbian people serving openly and courageously and it will not be an appetite to try
to change this. host: next is south carolina, jason on our republican . caller: i have a question. i am a die-hard republican. i have no problems with of the gay community at all. why do you keep using terminology like "we" or us" ? it is kind of misleading as a listener. you can say it as you want to, but that is how i see it. host: what is your question? guest: why does he use the terminology to single out the group away from the general public? guest: i am an advocate for gay rights and and a member of the gay community myself spending my job is to be out there and talk to folks about the issues that i
see facing the community. there are a lot of areas where discrimination specifically still impacts us. that is what i want to convey to the listeners. host: update us on the process that the president has concerned himself with. guest: of the bill has been in congress since 1994. a version has passed the house once in 2007 and came close in the senate bank and unfortunately, with the house leadership, they do not show an interest in moving the bill forward so it is hard for us to see success. hopefully we will get over that milestone. as i mentioned, a super majority with the "don't ask, don't tell ." host: and the respect for marriage act?
guest: is a relatively new bill that would repeal the defense of marriage act that defines marriage for federal purposes to exclude same-sex couples. that has just had a senate bill introduced in this congress for the first time. there was a hearing on it this summer. the first hearing since domo was enacted in 1996. there is an increasing number of states with the marriage. almost 140,000 married same-sex couples in the united states. we are really putting a face on the reality of what it does to same-sex couples, the rights and benefits that it denies them. host: how much was that momentum -- guest: i think that helps tremendously. you have the justice department saying the law is unconstitutional. i think that helps members of congress and senators and allows
the american people understand why this law has to be repealed. i think also that regardless of what happens with that the inflation and what the justice department is arguing, we do with that legislation, and what the justice department is arguing, more same-sex couples are saying why is it that my marriage is a legal where i live but ignored by the federal government? host: we are taping it tonight for c-span. you can tune in to c-span.org to see when we will air in that event. caller: i am retired navy. i agreed with the senator who said i do not care if they are straight. i just care if they can shoot straight. this is long overdue. i knew a lot of guys in the navy who had to keep it under cover
bank they were great. it is long overdue. going back to the beginning of time, people in this service or homosexual or day or whatever term used at the time. my fear is about all this is obama is president. you are going to be put in a database if you are gay. another administration comes with a big backlash and now you are going to be put in a database and discriminated against later with a different administration. that is why i am a libertarian and for freedom for everybody's freedom. thank you. guest: i am not aware of any effort by the defense department to collect information about people's sexual orientation. the repeal means that people can be open about their sexual orientation and not fear being discharged, but it does not mean that they are being required to
identify their sexual orientation or that the federal government is going to do anything with that information. host: this story that gay weddings will be allowed to be performed by a gay military chaplains. guest: this is a question of equitable access to military facilities. military facilities are used for weddings and a lot of other religious functions and insuring those facilities are open in a sexual orientation- neutral manner i think it is a matter of basic fairness and it is it not -- and the defense department is not endorsing any of those marriages and more than dod is endorsing a first commune or baptism or funeral that happens in one of those facilities. host: it allows chaplains to not perform them if they personally feel -- guest: wright. it is absolutely voluntary.
it seems like a significant religious liberty question as well. why would you risk the ability of a chaplain to voluntarily perform such a ceremony? host: harrisburg, ohio, for our guest brian moulton. are you there? go ahead. caller: i just want to say that nobody in my family, as far as i know, are gay, but it just irritates me when people are so against the gays. they are.that i hate to bring religion into it, but that is how god made them. please, just forget what they are. as long as they are good people, that is all that counts. thank you.
host: florida, republican line. caller: yes? host: you are on. caller: i just have a comment to make regarding that i think people are forgetting that our country was founded on "god we trust" and what the bible has to say about that. host: which is what? caller: i believe that the bible is against it. specifically gay marriages. guest: unfortunately, there is a frame and a narrative out there that there are gay rights on one side and religion on another, and that is not a fair picture. there are traditions that have an array of viewpoints, many of which are supportive of
marriages of same-sex couples. that is their understanding of their faith tradition. in a pluralistic society, it is important that all of those are respected. at the end of the day, it is a civil government that makes the decision about who can marry. that needs to be an issue that is separate from any particular religion decisions about homosexuality. host: would you say that religious groups have been resistant? guest: certainly. there are a lot of religious groups that are resistant to recognizing the equality of our community but that is changing every day. mainline protestant groups are coming around and supporting various equality issues. it is a spectrum that i hope any faith tradition would be opposed to because of sexual orientation. we are seeing many more like the united church of christ that support and to celebrate
marriages between same-sex couples. having faith leaders, and proactively fight for the rights of our community. organization has a clergy call every two years. we have had over 300 clergymen here on capitol hill, mainline religion, of all stripes, both christians and jews, speaking to their senators and congressman about why these issues are important to them both as fate leaders and individuals who counsels congregants see the discrimination first hand and think that both as leaders in the faith traditions and as representatives of faith traditions that these are things that need to change. host: caller: i work at a huge medical
facility in rochester. i have nothing against gay people. so mumbai friends are and they are good people. -- some of my friends are and they are good people. my partner and i have been together over 10 years. he is male. they will not let me get insurance on my partner. do you not think that is discrimination? guest: the only way same-sex couples are able to access the benefits you are describing, the idea was to find a way to get benefits to partners of gays and employees because marriage was not available to them. other couples can get married to access benefits like health insurance and related benefits. it is a way to get same-sex
couples the same benefits. that is the idea behind those programs. i think they were trying to help a group that did not have any access to those sorts of benefits. host: lubbock, texas, bettina on the democrats' line. caller: i have a statement to make. yes, i am here. host: keep talking. do not listen to the tv. caller: to me, it does not matter how you live your life. it is your live. i have nothing against gay people. i am going to treat you as a person. i do not condone it. i think it is wrong, but it is your live.
you have to answer to the man upstairs for that. i cannot judge you on how you live your live. nobody should discriminate you because of who you are what you do in your life. or what you do in your life. they should overlook that and see you as a person who wants to work and support a family. guest: the idea behind was like the non-discrimination act is that employment and other sorts of decisions in life should be on people's merit and ability to do the job and not on something like sexual orientation. unfortunately, our federal laws have not caught up to that concept. 89% of the american public has been pulled -- polled year after year supporting the concept. we're hopeful that the folks on the hill will catch up to that.
the majority of the republican field has expressed some degree of hostility to the quality we have achieved. several have expressed opposition to the repeal of and ansk, don't tell interest to rolling that back if they were to win. that is something that has been discussed. it has not been a central part of the debates for the republicans thus far. i hope that is a reflection of a willingness of not using lgbt issues as a wedge. no one on the republican side has the degree of support for lgbt issues that the president does. host: regina is on the republican line.
caller: he says everything is fine because religions are except in this. i am playing with my tax dollars for these facilities homosexuals are getting married in. this is an abomination in the holy bible that i follow. it is something i am forced to pay for. are there going to be same-sex housing on the facility that i will have to subsidize with my tax dollars? when you say there was no outcry from the military, i disagree with you. the i read articles about how the military was upset. use a military leadership. that is obama. he loves these new votes. maybe you should look at these people you say accept this. hormones are causing more girls
to a accelerate in their growth through purview the -- through puberty. it is also coming into the play a whole was sexually being encouraged. i do not want to pay for children to be taught as. i totally disagree with it. guest: there are going to be a lot of things that happened at military facilities based on other faith traditions or the policy implementation of the military the you are going to disagree with. the federal government is going to do things you do not approve of. in our democracy, we have the ability to vote the folks you disagree with out of office. despite the fact that they sacrifice in the same way as heterosexual colleagues in uniform, the defense of marriage act bars the federal government
from providing equal rights and benefits even to service members who put their lives on for us every day simply because the partner happens to be someone of the same sex. it is an issue we have to continue to push forward. i am sorry you disagree. i think it is a matter of basic fairness that if someone is going to serve and sacrifice, their families should be treated equally to other military families. host: paul is on the democrats' line. caller: i would like to make a comment in regards to the gays in the military. i am a 10-year vet in the army. if you are wounded or in the thick of things, you do not care about a man's politics or orientation. all you care about is if they are trained and have your back. gay people can enjoy the freedoms and liberties we do.
they should be allowed to serve and protect those rights. this is a further example of the hypocrisy of the republican party agenda that there are no entitlements. i think they are hypocrites. thank you very much. host: there are reports that the congressman and his partner had a son. that goes to the larger issue of adoption and km. guest: it is an issue of concern to our community. it is a patchwork of laws nationwide. there are states that limit marriage and adoption. there are states that are proactively welcoming lgbt
families with adoption and foster care. we just saw the end of the only state that band homosexuals in florida in the last couple of years. it amazes us that there are so many kids in need of loving homes in the foster care system -- that any state would want to turn away and otherwise qualified and loving parent wants to provide a home simply because of their sexual orientation. the only -- the federal government provides financial assistance to adoption and foster care efforts on the state level. it does not make policy decisions about who can and cannot adopt. there is legislation called the every child deserves a family act that would bring the federal money into play and encouraged states to have fairer adoption
and foster care policies. the role of the federal government is to provide technical assistance. the current administration is proactively pushing out information to the adoption and foster care agencies about encouraging the involvement of lgbt people in the adoption and foster care process. there is a proactive role for ke, buternment to tap, not really a policy role. caller: according to the bible, you people are an abomination in the site of the lord. you spread aids over the world. the decent people have to pick up the tab for that in our hospitals and health care. tell us how two men on an
island could reproduce and keep the world going. guest: hiv is a disease that affects a wide range of people. we should all be working to combat the epidemic and all the people in talks -- it impacts. it touches all people and not just the lgbt committee, although we' remain concerned about it. caller: i am in the navy. there were huge, of setting personal matters that happened tell.don't ask, don't i personally believe the stricter adherence to individual
rights could have prevented all of this in 2011. i noticed in my lifetime that success is dangerous for political movements and people. we do not know what is going to happen in the forces facing the military. a squad could be killed because someone refuses to surrender to homosexuals. we do not know what is going to happen in the future. guest: i appreciate your concern. i cannot speak for the military leadership and their expertise as to how this would be implemented and whether or not this would cause disruptions in the forces. they did come to that conclusion after a lengthy process. i trust they are experts and will ensure the implementation of the change is done in a way
that is not detrimental to our forces. host: what do they need to do? guest: they have done a great deal of training of the troops up to this point. there has been trading across the forces on the implementation of the policy. gay and lesbian service members have been in the forces for its entirety. they have been serving honorably. now they can serve openly. i do not think at the end of the day, that will change the ability of those individuals or their units to do their jobs well. host: new hampshire, you are next. caller: you have a difficult task ahead of you. you are trying to speak rationally and intelligently to the calls that you got. people coming from religious
backgrounds do not think that way. luck.h you a lot of w unfortunately, one of the major political parties sees political gain by opposing new and civil rights for everyone. good luck. guest: thank you. there's nothing inherently wrong republican, religious, or any group about being anti-lgbt. there are plenty of pro-lgbt religious folks. our job is to keep having these conversations in life to make sure people understand lgbt people are simply seeking full equality and of the law. they are neighbors, friends,
sons, and daughters. we will keep having those conversations. i do not disagree that it is a tough job, but we will keep doing it. host: manhattan, new york, is on the democrats' line. caller: i have sympathy and have many friends who are homosexuals. i am in disagreement with the openness in the military. i am a heterosexual. i have many friends and colleagues that are homosexuals. i am constantly being hit on. it is very uncomfortable. the guest says there is all this training and everything else, but we have no idea what the future will hold or what will be the result of this. why is the u.s. government having to give special treatment to people who have chosen a sexual activity?
two men together could be just best friends, but they've chosen sexual activity. now they are asking to be given special treatment. i think it is totally wrong to have a special classification. it is the demise of our country. host: we will leave it there and get his response. guest: nothing in repealing changesk, don't tell the regulations about inappropriate activity in the ranks. it is not corp. launched -- carte blanche for people to behave inappropriately in the military. gay people have been serving for decades and will continue to do so. the vast majority will do so honorably. those who do not will be subject to the military discipline
system. i do not think that is a fair criticism of the repeal. it is not special treatment repealing this law. it has been singling out the people for unfair treatment. this is just getting things back to where it should be. host: the president will adjust their group tonight. go to c-span.org for information about the event and when he will appear. if you want to keep track of all of our networks as far as what is on, go to twitter and sign up for "c-span now." we will send you updates throughout the week and weekend.
brian moulton with the human rights campaign, thank you very much. in our last segment, we will take a look at the e-verify program. stephen dinan from the "washington times" will be our guest. we will be right back. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> get regular updates of what is on the c-span network. it is easy to sign up. go to twitter.com/cspannow. which part of the u.s. constitution is important to you? that is our question is your
make a video documentary five minutes to eight minutes long. tell us the part of the constitution that is important to you. be sure to include more than one point of view and c-span programming. there is $50,000 in total prizes. the grand prize is $5,000. for details, go to studentcam.org >> he says tenure is in jeopardy and needs to be protected. >> it creates an atmosphere on campus where people can speak freely in their teaching and in terms of university governance. if you do not like a proposal the board or the president makes, you have to be able to speak freely about it. administrators should be able to do that as well. the shared governance is what academic freedom protect. without that, you do not have
the expertise of the faculty available to you. >> cary nelson on sunday night on a "q&a." >> this is a dangerous time for britain and its economy. the government austerity plan is failing. you can sense of fear people have as we watch the economic crisis threatened to return. >> with the british house of commons still in recess, annual party conferences are continuing in the u.k.. watch the keynote at 9:00 on sunday. then you can watch the one from prime minister david cameron. host: stephen dinan from the "washington times" joins us for
our final segment. we're talking about e-verify. guest: e-verify is the government database to allow businesses to check employees to make sure that our work- authorized based on social security numbers. it is currently a voluntary program. there are efforts underway in congress to make it mandatory. host: why would a business have this at their disposal? guest: it is currently on line. it is available through a website. it is a defense against hiring illegal immigrants. hiring illegal immigrants is against the law. this is a way of protecting the work force and a way for business to make sure they do not hire illegal immigrants and run afoul of the law. there is a bill in congress
right now where if you are using e-verify, it becomes a legal defense if you are found to have illegal immigrants on your staff. host: what information to people wanting to work for the company have to present? guest: right now, the employee verification system is paper based. employees are already required to submit information called form.i-9 that is the information the employer runs through e-verify. if you have a social security number, you are deemed work are authorized. for the employee, there is nothing different. under the voluntary system, you fill out the i-9 form and the employer runs it through. that is what would happen.
the accuracy level has been getting better. it is a tough concept to get out what it means to be accurate. as of last year, and 98.3% of all new hires were automatically confirmed as work eligible within 24 hours. the other 1.7% or 1.4% were eventually confirmed as work authorized. that means 0.3% were eventually confirmed work of rice. 1.4% were rejected. the question is how many of those were illegal immigrants versus how many eventually gave up or were not told that they could challenge is unclear.
98.3% is the basic accuracy rate. then you have these other gradations of inaccuracies. host: we would move away from a paper system. with the accuracy move up? guest: paper is not a problem. the problem is the databases that e-verify defense on. the department of homeland security and the immigration services run e-verify in connection with the social security databases. dhs has been adding more databases to work on the accuracy rate. the other potential and accuracy is that of the 98.3% confirmed, there are studies that suggest half of illegal immigrants run through the system actually end up getting confirmed.
that is something else to throw into the question of the accuracy rate. even among those who are confirmed, there are some that should have been rejected. host: our guest is here to talk about the e-verify system and its role in keeping illegal immigrants from getting jobs. if you want to ask questions, we have telephone numbers for republicans, democrats, and independents. email is also available. representative lamar smith was on the floor of the house making an argument for the expansion of this for businesses that already have it. >>. two years, 14 million americans have been out of work. illegal workers hold 7 million jobs. it is inexcusable that american workers have to compete with illegal immigrants for scarce
jobs. congress has the opportunity to open up millions of jobs for unemployed americans by requiring all u.s. employers to use e-verify. this program checks the social security numbers of new hires. e-verify is free, quick, and easy to use. individuals eligible to work in the u.s. arkansas -- confirmed 99.5% of the time. the public also supports e- verify. 82% of likely voters think businesses should be required to use e-verify to determine if a new employee is in the country legally. host: a coalition of groups recently sent a letter citing their opposition. the groups include the american civil the various union, the american policy center, consumer action, the competitive enterprise institute.
what does this say about their reaction to the bill? guest: is says is a very tough issue. the entire immigration issue creates these coalitions. the bill the congressman was talking about was moved through his committee last week. even in the amendment debate, you saw some interesting shifting coalitions to try to change the bill and strip all certain parts and alter it. there are other issues were all republicans are together and democrats are opposed. it comes down to that it is a very tough needle to read -- thread. it was worked on to try to do business groups a workable
solution, something they think they can work with. folks on the left think it is too burdensome to do mandatory verification until you legalize immigration because you create a nightmare for businesses, agriculture, and the illegal immigrants who would be subjected to this. the folks on the right do not like it because they think it gives -- the provisions are specific. one provision that got taken out for the coalition of democrats and republicans in the committee would have allowed farms and agriculture workers
to not run people through e- verify if they work together before. the work is seasonal. congressman smith said there is no reason to do that as long as the farms certified those are the people. the groups said it was back door amnesty because there is no indication it is the same person. a coalition got together and took that out, arguing it was back door amnesty. host: where is house leadership on this? guest: we have not heard a vow to bring this to the floor yet. congressman smith is pitching this as a jobs bill. the easiest way to get something on the floor of the chamber is to call it a jobs bill. it is a touchy thing. republican leaders are going to
wait to see whether an agreement can be worked out. agricultural workers is the major sticking point right now. much of the debate a few weeks ago was on whether firms would lose half of their workforce if this goes into effect. you are likely going to have to see a deal worked out to deal with agriculture in a successful way before it moves to the floor. host: will the senate accept what passes in the house? guest: i doubt it. democrats control the senate floor. there are many other things they are working on. we have little time left this year. next year is a presidential campaign year. i would be shocked to see it move in a presidential campaign year. you might see people trying to attach it to a broader bill. when you go down this road of dealing with any part of the immigration situation, you open
the door to the broad debate over legalization, the future flow of workers, families in the immigration system, enforcement, and all of that. the last few times we've seen this debate on the senate floor, it has lasted weeks and eaten up legislative time. it then ended up not going anywhere because the two chambers could not agree. host: it says it also contains a pilot by metric -- biometric i.d. program. guest: e-verify began in 1996 and began out of the 1996 immigration bill where they set up three new ways to check workers. this was one of those.
you will find a lot of different people trying pilot programs with immigration to see what works. this was one of three pilot programs started in 1996. the other two disappeared in 2003. this is the one that continued and has been strengthened. these are testing grounds. host: california is at first. william. caller: you kind of answered my question, but i will ask it. 97% of all of these people are working and have social security cards or numbers? guest: 98% are confirmed as work-authorized. there is a chance some of those have stolen social security numbers and should not have been
confirmed and are not authorized. the number the worker is using is a legitimate number but is not tied to that person. the smith bill takes steps to crack down on that. that is one issue with the system right now. the study suggests maybe 50% of illegal immigrants who apply for jobs get confirmed even though they should not have been. host: pennsylvania, mary is on the independent line. caller: 84 taking my call. -- thank you for taking my call. a few years ago, i received a notice from the irs saying i owed additional taxes. they listed three businesses that were probably orchards in washington state. obviously they have gotten my social security number. i called each of the businesses but never heard back. i wondered how that happened.
i am careful of my social security card and do not even carry it. i was wondering how that sort of thing happened. does e-verify do something to say it is a legitimate no. but it is not this person? -- it is a legitimate nonumber but it is not this person? nothing came of it. i explained to the irs that i was a 60-year-old woman and handicapped and would not be picking apples in washington state. >> that is part of what congressman smith tries to do in the bill, to deal with this issue of stolen social security numbers. it is tricky. i may be doing this too broadly, but there are some social
security numbers that appear repeatedly. they get sold around three number of different workers. they did. dozens of times. did they get sold around -- they get sold around by different workers. they go through dozens of times. the bill would have -- the government would go back and alert all of the employers who have those numbers and would try to get the correct number holder to come forward and verify that. then the number would be locked down to that employee. anybody else using that number would be non-confirmed. the way that all of this works is that social security numbers match other data the government house on file. if someone steals all of that
information together, they can use that number successfully. that is the key. identity thfraud and theft has gotten so good that they steal entire personalities and sell those. that is the way people get through the system. does the threat exists that e-verify could be used for things related to national security rather than immigration? guest: certain people fear that is a possibility. dhs and social security and have lost about how the data bases cannot be used. -- have laws about how the data bases cannot be used. people are concerned about it being used as a discriminatory and worry -- tool on the front
in. the law says you are not allowed to make people go through this before you offer a job. it is only after you offer a job that you go through the confirmation checks. there are different reports about people. there are reports of people being discriminated against. host: where is the system currently housed? guest: the chief database is social security that houses it. i did a story four years ago and visited the headquarters. i believe it was in the plaza over here. host: pedro is on the line.
caller: give me a minute to explain this. i am for e-verifying on the issue you are speaking about this morning. i am a democrat but somewhat conservative. i believe the problem is congress and groups that advocate for this are framing the whole thing wrong. i do not think our immigration system is so broken that it needs fixing. the problem is on one hand, we have immigration. then we have a migration problem. the problem is migration, not immigration. it is illegal migration.
that is what should be addressed and talked about. that is what is going on. from that, a lot of problems come about. different people can come up through the borders. terrorists, drug cartels, drug running, and so on and so forth. the problem is you are trying to put it under immigration. when you move from one area to another, geographically you are migrating. guest: as a reporter, this is one of the toughest things, the terminology of the debate. it matters immensely. there are folks that believe calling any bill amnesty is a way of killing any legislation.
the point the caller was trying to make is about the difference between immigrants, who are folks who have come through legal channels and have immigrated, and migration. a lot of folks will not use illegal and immigrant together because they say you cannot be an immigrant and illegal because immigrant is a legal process. the terminology can be tough in this debate. it is absolutely very charged. host: should congress be reducing overhead for employers instead of adding burdens? guest: republicans generally want to remove regulations on business. there are proposing this new mandatory program. you find a lot of interesting shifts on this. during the fight in the committee a couple of weeks ago, republicans generally say
things should be left to the state but or arguing that there should be one national standard. one thing the smith bill does is to preempt state law. it is tough because it is always changing. there are about five different states to require all businesses to use e-verify for the states. the smith bill would undo those and say you cannot have state laws. democrats often favor national standards but are saying to let the states make their own decisions. then you have the republicans saying businesses need a national standard. you find a lot of shifting in this. host: for a business, is it as simple as downloading software? guest: it is a web-based system.
you can check yourself. there is something called self check. i did it yesterday. you can run all of your information and see how the system works. you put in your name, social security number, date of birth. it is just like if you are doing a bank account or credit verification. they ask questions about whether you have lived at a certain address. after a few of those questions, it shoots back. i am happy to report that i was work-verified. host: is there hope for employers to get the system up and running? guest: in terms of information and training, absolutely. one of the big issues is how many employers may be abusing --
may not be using the system the right way is to be used. one key issue is that if you get a tentative non-confirmation that says the person does not match in the database right now, employers are supposed to pexplained to employees what thy can do. some employers do not do that. there have been reports that employers just say that you cannot work here. that is not supposed to happen. a lot of training could be done. host: raleigh, north carolina, greg is on the republican line. caller: i view this whole situation with great discussed. this has been going on for 40 years. the situation is not getting better.
it is getting work. -- it is getting worse. e-verify could be effected, but it is torpedoed by those who do not wanted to be effected. it is a morass. any time the federal government is involved with something, it turns from a moderate problem to a gigantic problem. i recall when the illegal alien situation began to grow back in the mid-1980s, at least in this state from what i can tell -- i do not want to come across as racist, i just want to speak the truth. guest: morass is probably a good word for much of the system.
everybody on both sides of the issue seems to agree it is broken. the question is what to do about it. it is an amazing issue because it is about basic american values, the rule of law versus the idea we are a nation of immigrants. we have illegal -- 11 million illegal immigrants in the country right now. everybody keeps struggling to find a solution. we will see where they end up. host: richmond, virginia, darrell is on the independents' line. caller: it has been said to sustain social security, we would have to import 4 million people a year. do you think e-verifying is an attempt to document everyone who is here? would it bring social security to the point where it needs to be? are there people that take advantage of the cheap labor of
illegals that would be taking care of by this? guest: the issue of social security is interesting. there are studies that suggest that one of the keyways for the government to meet their obligations to social security may be to let more people in legally each year. that is one way to do it. the issue is tied in with the basic questions going on. there are folks who argue that if e-verify goes into effect, you push workers underground. there are illegal immigrants working and paying taxes even though they do not get the benefits. those taxes go to the federal government. if you push them into the underground economy, you lose some of that revenue.
as congressman smith argues, this bill is about jobs. there are folks on the other side who argue it is not about jobs, it is about cutting federal revenue at a time when the government needs it. it is such a complex issue. host: has the congressman identified the number of employees a business has to have to be part of the system? guest: it is phased in over two or three years. larger businesses would have to be doing it early. at the end of two years after enactment, most businesses -- every business would have to be checking it. host: mary is on the democrats' line from texas. caller: people who are margaret workers have social security numbers. -- people are migrant workers
have social security numbers. those numbers are not verified any differently from the regular numbers. when they apply for government aid, the people grant for housing and low-cost loans. it takes them a long time before they realize they're not actually citizens and not eligible for this. they are wasting a lot of government money on that type of thing. if they had a letter in the numbers, they would know they were margaret workers right away. -- they would know they were migrant workers right away. it would save weeks of working with these people. it is not that they are illegal, it is that they are in migrant worker and are not qualified to get what they want. guest: one thing this bill does deal with is that social
security numbers do not expire. a social security number is issued to somebody who is here on a temporary work visas. that number does not expire. that number can be sold if the worker goes back home and be used fraudulently by others. they're all sorts of wrinkles to the issue. host: denver, colorado. go ahead. caller: my opinion is that the whole thing boils down to agreed. if the american politicians were representing americans, we would have a more effective system in place. big business wants a new lower costs -- class of workers. that is why the system is propped up to work but does not function. the system in place now allows
half of the people to go through and become verified. if the politicians were truly represented americans and not big business, the system would work well. guest: the immigration system is really complex. it works towards a bunch of different ends. one is family reunification. then it is also getting the workers the economy needs. students come here. there are a number of different ends the immigration system is working for. all of those come into conflict. it depends on what the goal of each arm of the system is. you can end up with those conflicts. host: do democrats have their own proposals? guest: some democrats are supportive of e-verify as a
stand-alone measure. there have been bills introduced in the past to deal with that. most democrats who support e- verify say that if it is going to be mandatory, it must be coupled with full legalization, comprehensive immigration reform. the legalization of the current work force, dealing with future workers, and then the interior and border parts of the equation. that is the big gap between republicans and democrats. most folks agree you need to have a better and verification system. the question is when and how to do it and what else gets attached to it. host: 10 is on the democrats' line from california. -- tim is on the democrats' line from california. caller: i would like to know if
local law enforcement or ice are notified to do a follow-up to find out the status of an individual that would fail an e- verify 7. -- set up. guest: that is a good question. i should know that. i do not think they do. you can get a non-confirmation for a number of different reasons. there are legal u.s. citizen workers to end up getting final non-confirmations and have to go through hoops to get that taken off. host: mark is from pennsylvania, on the republican line. caller: is this for all of the states?
in hawaii, it is real easy to do it. it is an island. immigrants have been coming through puerto rico and then made citizens with social security numbers. i know they are a commonwealth. illegal ones come from mexico through puerto rico. it amazes me we can keep people out of area 51 with a little sign, but we cannot keep them out of the united states. guest: right now there are five states that have e-verify mandatory for states. there are other states that have rules on government contracts and state contractors and agencies.
the smith bill would make it mandatory for the entire country. we talked a little bit about preemption earlier and what the bill would do to those state laws. this year, the supreme court wuled on arizona's e-verify la and upheld it as valid. the key question is one of pre- emption, whether the federal government has been deemed to occupy the field on this area. the 1986 law prohibited states from imposing criminal penalties for civil penalties, but it did say you could deal with business licensing. all of these laws, they are saying businesses would have their businesses affected if they did not comply.
newspapers in arizona have suggested that only 1/3 of businesses in arizona are following the law. only 1/3 or one-half of businesses in arizona are checking their employees. host: immigration service's asked for money for e-verify. guest: they are preparing. they believe eventually this will be mandatory system whether it comes through broad comprehensive immigration or gifts imposed as a piecemeal thing. -- or gets in pose as a piece nothing. they have ramping -- or gets imposed as a piecemeal thing. they have been ramping up preparing for that. caller: if you look your social security card, it has a number
on the front and back. you can easily detect if is fake if you check the numbers in the computer system. host: your point, sir? caller: that is it. host: we will go next to san antonio, texas. caller: i am disappointed that our government does not care for the citizens of the united states. i am very upset with this. i think lamar smith ought to be president with some of his rules. why can we not ask people bringing their children to school to verify day our citizens? it is happening in texas. i am white and being discriminated against. guest: alabama is moving ahead.
the district judge issued an opinion. alabama required schools give birth certificates. if parents do not provide them, the school is to go and find out the legal status. if it goes through alabama, we may see that they will finally get a count of how many illegal immigrants students are there. they may get an idea of how big an issue this is cost and resource was. we may finally get a count and be able to see specific numbers if that goes through.
what is realistically going to happen now and between the end of the year? guest: they are going to see if they can get a deal on agricultural workers. congressman smith introduced a different bill that would streamline the agricultural visa system. you could move both of the bills and take care of the article to side. that would remove a lot of objections from businesses. the question is whether they can get a deal on agricultural workers that satisfies both sides. host: "washington journal" comes your way with a new program tomorrow. it will be centered about -- around poverty in america. our first segment will take a look at recent census data.
our guests will be weighing in on that topic. we will have a segment looking at federal poverty programs at 8:30. programs outside of the government to fight poverty will be at 9:30. that, your calls, and the newspapers starting at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow. we will see you then. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
>> president obama gives a back- to-school speech to students in washington, d.c. later, a former ceo of bb & p bank examines the factors that led to the crisis of 2008. the head of the american association of university professors says tenure and academic freedom are in jeopardy and need to be protected. >> tenure creates an atmosphere on campus where people can speak freely, not just in their teaching but also in terms of university governance. if you do not like a proposal that the board or the president makes, you have to be able to speak freely about it. administrators should be able to do that as well. the shared governance